"Poor parenting is the key factor behind the significant gaps in readiness for school."
Of course it is! For a long, long time I have been screaming from the rooftops that the system must hold irresponsible parents to account for their negative actions and their inactions. Innovative technology, superb teaching staff and so-called new pedagogical ideas will ultimately serve no purpose unless certain parents - or types of parents - make more of an effort to raise their children to be well-behaved, articulate people who are able to contribute positively to society.
At the moment, 10% of the students in my school - namely those who are victims of poor parenting - take up 90% of the school's time and resources. And this statistic will be mirrored once these students leave school and stumble, unprepared, out to the world. Incapable of obtaining or maintaining genuine employment due to a lack of social skills and of course a lack of qualifications, this 10% of people will use 90% of society's resources, namely using and often abusing the ridiculous benefits system that exists in this country. This problem, in my opinion, needs to be properly addressed at the source.
Wednesday, 24 December 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Ack! I would submit to you that the "source" would be overly generous welfare funding.
Once you get into MANDATORY schooling and then hold parents "accountable" to the system, it isn't long before you trample people's rights. And where are you going to draw the line as to who is accountable when? How do you know when something is the result of poor parenting or a disability? Or just slow development?
Boys are specially notorious in this regard. My son Emperor, who is seven now, had been in Early Intervention (age 14 months to 2 1/2) and then special needs preschool for three years. But now, he can read and write at about an early sixth grade level (!!) and is doing fourth-grade mathematics, the same stuff the public school children are doing.
I'm still the same parent. My child did badly before and wonderfully now. *shrug*
Now I have a child who does not speak and is two years old. He's probably autistic like two of my other children. BUT if you were just looking at him for five minutes and saw some of his tantrums and that sort of thing, you might conclude it's poor parenting.
I guess I am concerned about a slippery slope there. Though I can heartily agree that there are some mighty crummy parents out there!!
Hope you & yours have the Happiest of Christmases!
Those poor kids...and they probably take up 99.9% of your time trying to get your attention, right? BTW, I've got a holiday snap of a different kind for you on Sx3 tomorrow...please do stop by!
Mrs. C, I doubt you are the type of parent the article talks about.
These included, for example, how sensitive and responsive a parent was to their child's needs, whether they read to the child and whether they took them on outings.
If a child has special needs, that is obviously a different situation completely, and not what this article or blog post is addressing. Too many parents do not take time to read to their children, teach their children responsibility or hold them accountable for their actions with natural consequences. Many parents don't even know how to do this.
I agree with you that there is no easy solution to this. What do you do with "unacceptable" parents? But we don't even try to hold parents responsible. At least we should make parenting classes mandatory. Sure, some people are going to cry about their rights being stepped on - but don't we demand that people take a class and pass a test before we put them in charge of a vehicle? Why is it unreasonable to ask the same before putting them in charge of another human being?
The problem comes when the parent doesn't comply. Taking the child away (or refusing to let the parent leave the hospital with the child after giving birth) seems a little extreme, but there are other ways to make the person comply (give the parents a hefty fine, suspend their driver's licenses, suspend access to their bank accounts - we can get creative).
I know these measures seem beyond drastic to some, because the parent should have rights. But what about the child's rights? Doesn't that child have a right to a decent parent? Doesn't that child have a right to an education, which begins at birth, at home? For the sake of the child, parents should be held accountable.
Mrs C: For me, the "source" of the problem that I am speaking of is not the overly generous welfare system but the people who exercise their right to reproduce but who do not make any effort to fulfil the responsibilities that go hand in hand with taking such a step. In other words, the "crummy parents" you refer to.
As for people's rights being trampled, what about the rights of the class teachers and the other students who have to put up with being in the same space as these children whose parents have made little or no effort to raise them properly?
Sra. Profe is correct in saying that you are not the type of parent the article talks about; and she is also correct in saying that children who have additional learning needs are part of a completely different situation.
Futhermore, I believe that she makes some solid suggestions as to how best to deal with inadequate parents.
Mr. Teacher and Sra. Profe, thank you for reading and responding to my comment.
You are absolutely right that you shouldn't have to put up with the extreme, constant disrespect from your students. Nor should any student have to put up with a bully. Of course you don't sound like the type to expel a child after he has one bad day or gets in one small fight as a first grader. I hope that you hear from me first, right off the bat, that nobody should ever have to put up with that on the job. I know you are mindful that these are children and make mistakes, but an outright hostile, nasty work environment is no good for you or the children.
And yes, parents should be solely, utterly and completely responsible for raising their children. Education in the state system, like driving on state roads, should not be some absolute right. I suppose if the state wants to start testing children WHO ARE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS between grade levels or upon admission, fine. The schools are paid for by tax dollars and are accountable to the taxpayer.
But the parenting.
Really, I see where you're coming from on the crappy parents who let these children run roughshod. Those children should be removed from the school. It shouldn't be an absolute right to use the schools. On the flip side of that coin, there is no reason that parents who don't want their children in school should have to send them. Or even educate them at all. Should the state parent the child?
Why is there such a big to-do if a child is not educated to a state standard? What is it about "education" that makes people think it should be mandatory? I've looked at some of the "Show Me Standards" for the state of Missouri. The state is indoctrinating these children. (And it's a pretty conservative state!) As early as first grade, the standards to be taught include "gender equality" and that sort of thing. "Tolerance" and "multiculturalism" come a little later. Thank you, but NO.
I'm nervous about the "parenting class" idea. Who gets to decide the content of the classes? Classes run by the state? Will we get to be like China where you are forbidden to reproduce until you swallow whatever propaganda they might feed you in said classes?
Maybe that sounds silly. Maybe you think we're nowhere near there. But I could easily see after such a class were instituted for, say, ten years, that a little more content is added. A little more. Soon you must be fully vaccinated and/or pledge to send your child to public schools or raise them a certain way to keep them.
Already we see evidence of this in the UK. Did you hear about the woman who lost custody of her son because he was too fat? The state didn't like what she was feeding him. OK, so the kid was extremely fat. And it's unhealthy to be that chubby. But where do you draw the line? When is it one twinkie too many, and you're coming with me, kid?
I think unless you can PROVE in a court of law that a violent offense against a child has been committed, the children belong with parents. Yes, that means that every now and then, you get a monster-bad parent keeping his kid. But it would eliminate the fishing expeditions by social workers and the trampling of the rights of millions of parents. I think despite what you see on the news, most parents are good.
(By the way, I have no problem with VOLUNTARY classes for prospective parents, so long as they're never court-ordered and it's law that they can never be required. Oh, and they have to be paid for privately. I do NOT want the state messing around with parenting. No way.)
I think parents should have absolute rights over the upbringing and education of their children. Of course that also means absolute responsibility. Of course that also means that when my children break something or do something wrong that I am responsible. (I want you to read that last sentence with lots of emphasis, because I think we all agree that is something that has been lost in our society!)
But parenting classes and holding parents "accountable" for behaviour in a school they're REQUIRED to attend makes me very nervous. Of course they are 100 percent responsible for their children. And, if the school so chose, it should be able to make such accountability part of the enrollment process if children are not required to attend. But just by nature of HAVING a child, BEING ACCOUNTABLE to the state is chilling. Just chilling.
I think of the Nazis and the Chinese when I think of such things. Which, yeah, there's a lot of silliness comparing everything and everybody to the Nazis, but in terms of who gets to propogate when, and the state getting involved? It's an appropriate comparison.
And forcing children to go to state schools... the Germans do that now. Shame on them. I would hate to see such a thing come to America or spread throughout Europe.
I do have two older children in public school and have a vested interest in having those schools be places of order and safety. That being said, if it were solely up to me and not my husband, those children would be home. Since I have been homeschooling, my eyes have been opened to some of the things they're teaching there, and I don't like being the parent that has to keep calling up and telling the teachers that my kids are leaving for this and that portion. :]
Mrs. C,
Children will grow up to be adults (at least, that's the plan -- am I mistaken?) These adults will live in society with the rest of us. This is why the state requires that children be educated; since We The People tell the state what to do (that's the way democracy works; I know it's not a perfect system, but it's the best we have and it does work pretty well most of the time), We The People want those children to be productive members of society when they reach adulthood, which is why we told the state to develop a system to educate all children.
Nowhere does it say you MUST send your children to public school. You can send them to private school, if you can pay tuition, or you can homeschool. But they do need to be educated. Otherwise, we'd be giving way to much business to that "overly generous welfare" system you mentioned in your first comment.
Children have rights, and parents are not perfect. We can argue all day long about WHERE the line needs to be drawn, but the line needs to exist. My mother is a social worker; I have heard too many things that parents have done to their children to not respond to your comments. Yes, parents MUST be held accountable. Because someone needs to stand up for those children -- they are too young to speak up for themselves, and they do not know better. They cannot make choices for themselves; the parents should be there to guide them and show them how to make those decisions. Sadly, some parents don't do that. When parents are not doing their job, someone has to step in for the sake of those children.
I have not heard the story of the boy in England who was taken from his parents due to his obesity, but I'm sure if the state stepped in and took that drastic step, then the child had to be morbidly obese. Who draws the line? Doctors. They seem to know a thing of two about health and obesity.
"Fishing expeditions by social workers"? Maybe things are different in Missouri, but here social workers are so bogged down with paperwork and red tape, they can barely take care of the extremely severe cases they already have (where, YES, they have TONS of legal evidence, thank you). I bet they would LOVE to have enough time to even contemplate the possibility of "fishing expeditions."
It is hard to believe some of the stories I have heard. And some of the things I have seen. Horrible things happen, and we are not talking about parents who spoil their kids to avoid a tantrum in a grocery store, or who allow their kids to have Twinkies. There are some seriously disturbed "parents" out there (I think at this point we've left the realm of the original blog post), and someone needs to stand up for the rights of those innocent children.
Post a Comment